Dalwhinnie/Newtonmore - Tulloch line proposals?

[GusB]

Just personal opinion of course, but I have my doubts. Building 100+ route miles through difficult country for roughly a train every two hours each way? I think it would be difficult to make the benefit/cost ratio stack up.

Of course politics might affect it as well, if the voters of Nairn, Forres, Elgin, Keith, Huntly and Inverurie need to be kept on-side.

The aim of the current improvement programme is to increase that frequency. I believe the target is to have an hourly service between Aberdeen and Inverness, with a half-hourly service between Elgin and Inverness. I can't remember the figures for the other end of the line, but they've been posted on the forum elsewhere.

All this is dependent on the upgrades being completed, of course.

 

[Asterix2012]

But there isn't any economic activity between Tulloch and Dalwhinnie! Unless you count a few trees and sheep.

There was a proposal as recently as 1978 to build a line from Newtonmore to Tulloch. I believe in connection with the aluminium smelter at invergordon. At that time there were trainloads of alumina between invergordon and fort William and this line was proposed to reduce the distance travelled.
With the failure of the facility at invergordon the proposal came to nothing.

 

[47271]

witness current traffic levels and resulting economic activity on the Far North line, the Kyle line, and Inverness - Aberdeen.

I'll give you Kyle and the Far North beyond Tain, but don't think that's quite right as far as Inverness-Aberdeen is concerned.

Entries and exits in 2015-16:

Nairn - 130k
Forres - 131k
Elgin - 344k
Keith - 99k
Huntly - 106k
Insch - 118k
Inverurie - 534k
Dyce - 664k

Inverurie and Dyce were down on 14-15 because of the oil downturn, Dyce achieved near on 825k in 14-15.

Evening peak trains north out of Aberdeen run at seven cars, the longest on Scotrail, and Aberdeen-Inverurie is about to be doubled, opening in 2019.

 

[Highland37]

But nowhere near enough to justify the huge cost - witness current traffic levels and resulting economic activity on the Far North line, the Kyle line, and Inverness - Aberdeen.

Please note that I'm not suggesting that those lines should be closed, but if they didn't exist, they would never justify the cost of building them from scratch now.

Why are we really keeping these lines open then? I am in Skye right now haven driven here earlier today. It's cheaper, faster and easier.

Really, on a cost basis why are we spending money on things that don't deliver much? Note I am playing devil's advocate here. If it costs too much, and cost is the primary measure, then stop spending and invest in something worthwhile.

I am not suggesting any line should close either. But I am also not suggesting that cost is a proper measure of railways. Rail always loses on this front.

 

[DelW]

The aim of the current improvement programme is to increase that frequency. I believe the target is to have an hourly service between Aberdeen and Inverness, with a half-hourly service between Elgin and Inverness.

I'll give you Kyle and the Far North beyond Tain, but don't think that's quite right as far as Inverness-Aberdeen is concerned.

Entries and exits in 2015-16:

Nairn - 130k
Forres - 131k
Elgin - 344k
Keith - 99k
Huntly - 106k
Insch - 118k
Inverurie - 534k
Dyce - 664k

Inverurie and Dyce were down on 14-15 because of the oil downturn, Dyce achieved near on 825k in 14-15.

Evening peak trains north out of Aberdeen run at seven cars, the longest on Scotrail, and Aberdeen-Inverurie is about to be doubled, opening in 2019.

I'm pleased to hear that this line is doing better than I realised. I'll admit that the last time I was in that area was in the early 2000s, and at that time trains seemed to be few and far between around Inverurie and Keith. That was only casual observation, though, I was travelling by car as I needed to reach places like Ellon and Cruden Bay, whose railway links closed long ago.

Why are we really keeping these lines open then? I am in Skye right now haven driven here earlier today. It's cheaper, faster and easier.

Really, on a cost basis why are we spending money on things that don't deliver much? Note I am playing devil's advocate here. If it costs too much, and cost is the primary measure, then stop spending and invest in something worthwhile.

I am not suggesting any line should close either. But I am also not suggesting that cost is a proper measure of railways. Rail always loses on this front.

Well there is a big difference in cost between maintaining an existing asset and creating it from scratch, or re-creating it from dereliction.

I still think that had Aberdeen - Inverness not been built, there would have been no likelihood of constructing it now. If it had fallen victim to Beeching era cuts, we might by now have reinstated the ends and be talking about reconnecting them - as for the Borders - Carlisle discussion. But back on the original topic: for Tulloch to Newtonmore -surely no chance on any rational basis.

 

[najaB]

Really, on a cost basis why are we spending money on things that don't deliver much? Note I am playing devil's advocate here. If it costs too much, and cost is the primary measure, then stop spending and invest in something worthwhile.

The costs of keeping the lines open are several orders of magnitude less than the cost of building them from scratch would be.

 

[Deepgreen]

But there MIGHT be if there was a railway there

I don't think we're in the business of building expensive railways through mountain wilderness on the off-chance that it will become a thriving ribbon development.

 

[Highland37]

The costs of keeping the lines open are several orders of magnitude less than the cost of building them from scratch would be.

Yes but it costs money. The favour measure of many on here is BCR and these lines cost a lot and make very little, requiring large subsidy. It isn't worth it on a financial basis.

The point I am making is that we should be focussing on the wider benefits, not JUST the cost and using this to rule things out.

Rail is a very poor relation to roads on BCR.

 

[InOban]

Yes but it costs money. The favour measure of many on here is BCR and these lines cost a lot and make very little, requiring large subsidy. It isn't worth it on a financial basis.

The point I am making is that we should be focussing on the wider benefits, not JUST the cost and using this to rule things out.

Rail is a very poor relation to roads on BCR.

Have you evidence for that last statement?

 

[Highland37]

Have you evidence for that last statement?

Yes - rail requires large, on going subsidy relative to road.

I am now back in Inverness having driven back via Cluanie (I went via Achnasheen on my way to Skye). I am pretty sure the A87 is a lot cheaper to maintain than the Kyle line.

Don't get me wrong, I am very pro-rail but if cost is to be the measure, we're dooooooomed!

 

[najaB]

Yes - rail requires large, on going subsidy relative to road.

Road transport enjoys massive subsidies as well. Something like 30% for road freight.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I don't think we're in the business of building expensive railways through mountain wilderness on the off-chance that it will become a thriving ribbon development.

Quite. This thread started out as moderately intriguing - I'm beginning to wonder if it going to get about 15 pages of responses, according to the law of inverse retorts. (The battier the original idea, the heavier the response levels.)

That would make it in line for the "most bonkers thread of the year" award . in close competition with Reopening from D*mfr**s to Str*nr**r and *be*stw*th to C*rm*th*n. (Trying not to let the genies out of their virtual four-foot bottles. )

 

[InOban]

I agree. The more trivial and the more subsidised the service, the more posts. Eg Caledonian Sleeper.

 

[BigCj34]

If the Far North line and Kyle line closed, the crayonista's would have a heart attack, as they are very prominent on a map. Presumably the latter has probably lost some use given there is a bridge connection to Skye now and the direct bus services that has brought.

They need investment to bring the journey speeds anywhere near car journey times, but difficult to justify on terms of cost.

 

[endecotp]

Why are we really keeping these lines open then? I am in Skye right now haven driven here earlier today. It's cheaper, faster and easier.

Really, on a cost basis why are we spending money on things that don't deliver much? Note I am playing devil's advocate here.

Because rail travel is more environmentally friendly than car travel, is safer, and is accessible to those who cannot use a car (including the young, elderly, disabled etc.).

I'd also say that if we believe that public transport is better for urban or inter-urban journeys and want to convince people not to drive into city centres (to reduce air pollution, congestion etc) then it helps to provide a comprehensive public transport system including unprofitable rural routes. The alternative is to say "use the bus to commute to work, but keep your car for your weekend trips"; but that makes the bus look more expensive as you're still paying the fixed costs of the car you're not using.

 

[Bald Rick]

Because rail travel is more environmentally friendly than car travel, is safer, and is accessible to those who cannot use a car (including the young, elderly, disabled etc.).

Safer, unquestionably.

More accessible, is arguable. It is far easier for most people in those groups to use a car that someone else is driving than use a train. Acknowledging that some people don't have access to a car and driver unless they ring for a taxi, which may be expensive. However in the case of the highland line, they would most likely still need to do that to get to a station.

More environmentally friendly - yes for services that operate well loaded and/or with electric traction. However rail is absolutely not more environmentally friendly than road transport in terms of emissions and pollutants on low density, diesel operated rural routes, such as the Highland line. A 2 car DMU with, say, 30 people on board will be chucking out more than twice as much CO2, and many more times the levels of other pollutants than if every passenger drove themself in a decade old VW golf diesel. If you were to have a diesel car less than 2 years old, the level of the worst pollutants (Nitrogen oxides and particulates) a Class 156 or 158 (say) throws out is several hundred times more than a single occupancy car per person.

 

[najaB]

A 2 car DMU with, say, 30 people on board will be chucking out more than twice as much CO2, and many more times the levels of other pollutants than if every passenger drove themself in a decade old VW golf diesel.

Mathematically, that doesn't seem logical. Just on the basis of 2 x 350hp engines versus 30x70hp engines. Not to mention the fact that steel wheel on steel rail is more energy efficient than rubber tire on tarmac.

 

[Asterix2012]

Quoted fuel consumption by class 158 for comparison is 1 litre per mile per vehicle. This is from a Poterbrook brochure.
Going by my own diesel Ford Focus I would use a litre in 10miles, so it would appear that in that scenario with one passenger per car the 158 would match fuel consumption on 10 passengers per vehicle.

 

[Bald Rick]

My 7 year old Golf has a 140bhp Diesel engine that averages almost 50mpg running around town with no long journeys. Last month I got well over 70mpg on a longer trip.

Meanwhile, train fuel consumption depends on stopping pattern and topography. I know of some modern DMUs that struggle to get 2mpg per vehicle. No doubt the Porterbrook brochure figure was on a favourable cycle.